Newburgh proposes 5.6% budget increase with 0% tax levy; public hearing draws questions on litigation costs

District staff presented the Newburgh City School District’s proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget to the board and public during a May 13 budget hearing, reporting a year‑over‑year budget increase and a proposed 0% increase in the tax levy.

A staff presenter said the proposed budget shows a 5.6% increase from the prior year and noted that “for 8 of the 9 previous years, there has been a 0% tax increase” and that the proposal for the coming year again shows a 0% tax levy change. The presenter described the required three‑part budget breakdown — administration, capital and programmatic — and said the programmatic portion remains the largest share of expenses, covering instruction, transportation and services for exceptional learners.

On revenue, the presenter described multiple sources without citing a single consolidated figure on the public screen: “state sources, which come in at, over $245,000,000; federal sources, which are 660,000; local sources at over 123,000,000; and then we have appropriated reserves of 1,200,000 and the appropriated fund balance of approximately $8,000,000,” and referred to state aid increasing by $20,200,000 due to excess costs. The presenter also described four propositions that will appear on the May 20 ballot: Proposition 1 (the district budget), Proposition 2 (Newburgh Free Library tax levy), Proposition 3 (improvements to Newburgh Free Academy North Campus auditorium), and Proposition 4 (clean energy improvements for Foster Town and Gardnertown contingent on grant funding). Polls were announced as open from noon until 9 p.m. on May 20.

Members of the public used the hearing to ask questions about budget details. Several speakers pressed for clarity on whether litigation and settlement costs — including amounts related to lawsuits discussed by commenters — were included in the district’s contingency or litigation line items. One commenter asked whether the board majority had been aware of pending lawsuits involving district leadership and whether litigation costs would be borne by taxpayers; the board’s staff and counsel repeatedly said the budget hearing allows questions but public officials are not required to answer all questions on the spot. Legal counsel David Shaw told the room, “The public is given an opportunity to ask questions about the matters covered by the budget. There is no duty to answer. There's no responsibility for individual board members to answer.”

A member of the public identified himself as David Rhine and described a long history in the community before asking a budget question. Tristan Welling, who said he has four sons who attended Newburgh schools, asked why taxes were not reduced after a temporary tax levy increase the prior year; he asked whether funds raised to cover a timing gap in state aid were being returned or used to reduce taxes in the current proposal. Another commenter sought clarification about whether surplus funds from the prior year had been carried forward and how they affected the proposed budget.

Superintendent Dr. Bond (identified in the meeting) told the board she would provide written responses and post them on the district website before the May 20 vote: “I will be responding in writing, and I will put it on the website for anyone to hear before the twentieth.” The board’s public hearing was later closed and the meeting transitioned to other business.

The presentation and hearing included public comment but did not produce a formal board vote on the budget at the meeting; the district’s budget and the four propositions were scheduled for the May 20 public vote.